MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912042906 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz007

Canadian spontaneous coronary artery dissection cohort study: in-hospital and 30-day outcomes

2019· article· en· W2912042906 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jacqueline Saw, Andrew Starovoytov, Karin H. Humphries, Tej Sheth, Derek So, Kunal Minhas, Neil Brass, Andrea Lavoie, Helen Bishop, Shahar Lavi, Colin Pearce, Suzanne Renner, Mina Madan, Robert C. Welsh, Sohrab Lutchmedial, Ram Vijayaraghavan, Eve Aymong, Bryan Har, Réda Ibrahim, Heather L. Gornik, Santhi K. Ganesh, Christopher E. Buller, Alexis Matteau, Giuseppe Martucci, Dennis T. Ko, G.B. John Mancini

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Issues in Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalMontreal Heart InstituteSt. Paul's HospitalSaint John Regional HospitalUniversity of AlbertaHealth Sciences CentreSt Mary's HospitalThe Scarborough HospitalLondon Health Sciences CentreQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreUniversity of SaskatchewanMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of OttawaRoyal Alexandra HospitalGenome PrairieRoyal University HospitalSt. Michael's HospitalSunnybrook Health Science CentreSt. Boniface HospitalHamilton General HospitalVancouver General Hospital
FundersAbbott VascularNational Institutes of HealthInstitut de Cardiologie de MontréalUniversity of AlbertaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSunovionLondon Health Sciences CentreDoris Duke Charitable FoundationBoston Scientific CorporationNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteHeart and Stroke Foundation of CanadaPfizerServierUniversity of MichiganEli Lilly and CompanyAstraZenecaCleveland ClinicCleveland Clinic FoundationMcGill University Health CentreMcGill UniversityUniversity of OttawaUniversity of British ColumbiaSanofi
KeywordsMedicineArtery dissectionCohortCardiologyInternal medicineArteryEmergency medicineCoronary angiographyMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) was underdiagnosed and poorly understood for decades. It is increasingly recognized as an important cause of myocardial infarction (MI) in women. We aimed to assess the natural history of SCAD, which has not been adequately explored. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a multicentre, prospective, observational study of patients with non-atherosclerotic SCAD presenting acutely from 22 centres in North America. Institutional ethics approval and patient consents were obtained. We recorded baseline demographics, in-hospital characteristics, precipitating/predisposing conditions, angiographic features (assessed by core laboratory), in-hospital major adverse events (MAE), and 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). We prospectively enrolled 750 SCAD patients from June 2014 to June 2018. Mean age was 51.8 ± 10.2 years, 88.5% were women (55.0% postmenopausal), 87.7% were Caucasian, and 33.9% had no cardiac risk factors. Emotional stress was reported in 50.3%, and physical stress in 28.9% (9.8% lifting >50 pounds). Predisposing conditions included fibromuscular dysplasia 31.1% (45.2% had no/incomplete screening), systemic inflammatory diseases 4.7%, peripartum 4.5%, and connective tissue disorders 3.6%. Most were treated conservatively (84.3%), but 14.1% underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and 0.7% coronary artery bypass surgery. In-hospital composite MAE was 8.8%; peripartum SCAD patients had higher in-hospital MAE (20.6% vs. 8.2%, P = 0.023). Overall 30-day MACE was 8.8%. Peripartum SCAD and connective tissue disease were independent predictors of 30-day MACE. CONCLUSION: Spontaneous coronary artery dissection predominantly affects women and presents with MI. Despite majority of patients being treated conservatively, survival was good. However, significant cardiovascular complications occurred within 30 days. Long-term follow-up and further investigations on management are warranted.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.366
Threshold uncertainty score0.737

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations432
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicCardiovascular Issues in PregnancyFrench-language works237,207